Dela Rosa’s lawyers challenge P50M arrest bounty: ‘Illegal and risky’

MANILA, Philippines—The law firm representing Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa on Friday questioned the legal basis of the P50-million bounty for the senator’s arrest.

“Every peso of a government reward must answer one question – for the arrest of whom, in what case, by order of what court?” law office Torreon and Partners asked in a statement posted in its official Facebook page.

It explained that “the DILG does not grant rewards by press conference. It grants them through Memorandum Circulars covering ‘Most Wanted Persons.'”

Article continues after this advertisement

The senator’s defense team pointed out that the DILG’s own reward protocol requires a valid Philippine arrest warrant and a designated case number, before a person can be listed as a Most Wanted Person.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

The group said this protocol is governed by regulations such as DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2015-136 and PNP Memorandum Circular No. 2011-001.

As an example, it cited the case of businessman Atong Ang, for whom the DILG offered a ₱10-million reward in January 2026.

Dela Rosa’s counsels noted that a regional trial court in Santa Cruz had already issued a domestic warrant prior to the reward’s public posting.

They emphasized that the only process currently existing against the senator originates from the International Criminal Court (ICC)—a tribunal from which the Philippines withdrew effective March 17, 2019.

Article continues after this advertisement

No local judge has examined, endorsed or adopted the foreign tribunal’s warrant, the lawyers said.

“A reward system built on Philippine warrants cannot be used for a person who has no Philippine warrant,” they explained.

Article continues after this advertisement

Torreon law office also expressed concern over the tag, describing it as “armed and dangerous,” emphasizing that the label, plus a high-value bounty, invites risks of vigilante action.

“Private persons may arrest without a warrant only in the narrow situations listed in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. A foreign warrant is not one of them,” the firm said.

It believes “a bounty that invites “capture” without a Philippine warrant does not promote law enforcement. It invites people to take the law into their own hands.”

The law office also questioned the source of the bounty money.

It warned that utilizing intelligence funds without a supporting domestic warrant violates statutory financial guidelines.

The group also cited Article VI, Section 29(1) of the 1987 Constitution and Section 4 of the Government Auditing Code (P.D. No. 1445).

These provisions state that public funds may only be disbursed pursuant to appropriations made by law and strictly for public purposes.

Furthermore, under COA-DBM-DILG-GCG-DND Joint Circular No. 2015-01, intelligence funds used for informer rewards must directly align with authorized agency activities, the law office said.

The funds must also be backed by documentation showing successful law enforcement actions under Philippine law, it remarked.

“These funds were appropriated for Philippine law enforcement, peace and order, and national security operations,” dela Rosa’s lawyers maintained.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

They added that intelligence funds cannot serve as a “blank check for enforcing a foreign court’s process.” /apl